Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) Technology for Bone Health Status Evaluation in Kidney Transplant Recipients
Rattachement africain : it. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background: A significant loss in bone density and strength occurs during the post-renal-transplant period with higher susceptibility to fracture. The study aims to compare the performance of the Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) in the bone mineral density assessment with the conventional dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in a cohort of kidney transplant recipients (KTR). Methods: A cohort of 40 patients underwent both DXA and REMS examinations on the lumbar spine and/or proximal femur. The paired t-test was used to compare DXA and REMS measurements; the chi-square test was used to compare the prevalence of osteoporosis/osteopenia. The agreement between the two techniques was assessed through Spearman’s correlation. Results: As expected, most KTR patients were osteopenic or osteoporotic with both REMS and DXA (86.5% and 81% for the femur; 88% and 65% for the lumbar spine p < 0.05). A modest correlation (r = 0.4, p < 0.01) was observed at the lumbar spine between the T-score measured by REMS and DXA. A strong correlation was defined between REMS and DXA in the femoral region (r = 0.7, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: The study demonstrates the exchangeability of the two techniques on the proximal femur in KTR and a higher diagnostic accuracy of REMS at the spine level than DXA.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Radiofrequency Echographic Multi Spectrometry (REMS) Technology for Bone Health Status Evaluation in Kidney Transplant Recipients
- Date Crossref
- 23/09/2024
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.